Kmcalpin

Wouldn't argue with that reasoning. I'd also start Bowman ahead of Johnson as we'll need some strong runners up front and incursions into the Celtic box may be few and far between. .

Robbo also made comments about changing the squad in January and having to move players on to bring some in. As there's very few of Mark McGhee's signings now left, that to me is an admission that he's got it a bit wrong so far, both in terms of last summer's signings and those before that. I suppose an obvious one is Conor Sammon, although in his case it may be possible to terminate his loan prematurely. Hopefully budgets will allow us to recall Jake Hastie from Alloa to give him an overdue chance. David Turnbull is an interesting one. One or two had concerns about the club saying we were "hopeful" of extending his deal. Robbo has now clarified that by saying the lad himself is keen to stay but his agents are not persuaded; so the question is what influence does he have over his agents? Interesing too that our fans divided over him. Some want him to stay others want him to leave. For my part I think he he ought to give it another year or perhaps two at the most as he's still only 19. He should look to the likes of Lee Erwin, Robbie Leitch, and Alan Martin to see where they ended up.

Absolutely. Whilst the headlines might be off putting I can't really disagree with much that he's said and am surprised at the reaction on here. The only thing I'd take issue with though is his statement that he was forced to play footballers. As I said on the weekend's matchday thread he did have other options, but as far as I can tell chose not to use them. Now I like open expansive football on the deck as much as the next fan, but on our budget there are limits. To allow the "footballers" to play their game you have to be physical enough to compete and win the ball first. Its difficult to play exciting football if you don't have the ball. On Saturday, Livingston, not us, dictated how the game would be played. Not surprisingly they chose to play to their strengths. Make no mistake the best teams are physically hard and robust when they need to be i.e. to gain possession. My only concern is one which Clackscat raised above and one which I hadn't thought of before. To play a high pressing and physical game, as Robbo, promotes, it does put the players under a lot of physical strain and maybe that isn't sustainable. We should watch Livingston with interest to see if they crack. As far as Bigi is concerned you're spot on. He's not the sole reason we're doing poorly this season but he is one of a good number of players who are either not good enough or are off form. Seeing as his name has been raised specifcally though he is in the team to provide creativity and to be blunt has been very inconsistent in that role (no player plays well every week). When we're on top he plays well but when we're not he is anonymous. Last Saturday for example, the type of game didn't suit him, nor did the pitch, but he did have several opportunities in the first 45 to provide a spark or create opening but he didn't or couldn't. Defensively he's always been weak (tracking back and losing his man) and thats a consistent feature of his game ie against Aberdeen and again last weekend. Now the question then arises is his attacking prowess so good that we should build a midfield around him and select players to specifically compensate for his deficiencies? I just don't think so. In short if he's picked to play he might create attacking opportunities once every 2/3/4 weeks but he'll cause defensive problems every week.

There will be quite a few cuts and bruises after Saturday's battle, so that might influence team selection. Irrespective of the result last weekend this will be a different kind of game and requires a change in team selection. As said recently its horses for courses.

Yes. Young players are inconsistent and have to be carefully nursed but not mollycoddled. In our model, the Barry Maguires and David Turnbulls provide the skill and quality and the older pros should provide the reliability, stability and consistency but thats not how its turned out so far unfortunately.

To a great extent yes. We've had a bad run of injuries this season and that certainly hasn't helped. Whilst we do lack creativity and badly, what we have lacked so far this campaign is solid, reliable no nonsense players of a calibre equivalent to Premiership positions 7/8. These guys don't come expensive just ask Livingston. OK the quality of football isn't great but they perform reasonably well week in week out without setting the heather on fire but by the same token they don't make many errors. Too often this term our players just haven't proved to be reliable or consistent as you rightly point out.

My opinion is based on an article I read on this messageboard ie to the effect that "management" saw a future for him in midfield. He also played there for a short spell there yesterday. He's not your bog standard big bruiser of a centre back but is, as you acknowledge, a cultured player. Time will tell.

I picked up Robbo's comment recently that Milo posted earlier on the matchday thread. "Robinson said in the press yesterday he fears/expects our “better players” to leave in January? Which ones would that be?!?!" I must admit to being curious myself. Other things being equal, which they're not, I would have said, Carson, Tanner, Cadden, Gillespie, Dunne, Turnbull and Campbell. Realistically I'd narrow that down to Cadden, Turnbull and Campbell. A curious quote.

Barry Maguire Ok he'll have better games than he did yesterday but he was onwe of the better performers. If he continues to develop he'll have a real future in the game, maybe in midfield? Yesterday he overdid the fancy stuff at times and got caught out but he's a decent prospect. A few months in the gym and work with the sports scientist will bulk him up and he'll go from strength to strength.

I take your point Yorky; it isn't easy but thats what the manager is paid for. Gorrin could justifiably ask why he was dropped after playing reasonably well last week when he came on. I'm a firm believer in horses for courses and what might work against one team might not work against another. We're not good enough to play the same way week in week out and say let the opposition worry about us. On paper the Aberdeen home game and Livingston away game were very different matches as will the Celtic game be next week.

I'll hold my hand up and say I was maybe the single one. Yes, hindsight is wonderful thing and I had no idea just how bad we were going to be but I had my reservations. What could we have done differently? Quite a lot actually. Keeper: no problem with Gillespie and he didn't let us down, despite being given no protection. Defence: limited options. Donnelly in for Maguire? Debatable at best. Midfield: my biggest grouse. Playing a physical, streetwise team like Livingston on their own patch on a plastic pitch set up for a midfield battle? Safety first approach in my view. Campbell needs an extended rest badly and, injuries apart, I wouldn't play him again until after the winter break. Andy Rose would have given us more physical presence and badly needed height. A Turnbull/Bigirimana partnership is one which I'd be very cautious about ever using again. Both are creative players who can't defend (this was evident even in the Aberdeen game) although Turnbull is a young player who has a lot to learn and he will do. As Pepper says above Bigi's defending was woeful yesterday and lost men on umpteen occasions. If we're going to be better than the opposition and win the possession battle then yes play them together otherwise definitely not. Gorrin is a better all round player and a bit stronger. I would still have started with Turnbull. Grimshaw? Probably earned his chance but a more physical option would have been Donnelly. Tait - out of position and Adam Livingston is overdue his chance (not saying he is the messiah by the way). Midfield is where Robbo got it badly badly wrong. Strikers: Against a huge physical defence then Main and Bowman must start. Johnson is more of a penalty box player. Tactics wise we were never going to play silky soccer on that pitch. As Wellwell91 said above we should have prepared for a streetbrawl/midfield slugging match (my words)/hoofball/long ball game. According to the BBC we lost possesion by 62-38 and thats telling. You cannot play nice football and score goals if you don't compete and therefore don't have the ball. In Robbo's words we did not earn the right to play. Most of us knew in advance what to expect from Livingston and they didn't let us down in that respect. if, as we knew, they'd rely on long throws and set pieces then, in Jim Gannon's words don't concede avoidable corners, free kicks and throw ins. Our team selection and tactics depended on us defending well when in the box. In my view if you make an error there thats it. Instead we should have been set up to stop Livingston in their tracks 40 yards from goal. Sorry for the rant but yesterday's debacle was to some extent foreseeable and avoidable. Just in case our management don't know what to expect in our game at NDP on the 29th - expect much the same type of game.

By my calculations, something like 15 players, including 2 loanees will be out of contract at the end of the season. A massive clearout on the cards? How many from Aldred, ATS, Bigirimana, Bowman, Cadden, Frear, Gorrin, Grimshaw, Main, Mbulu, McHugh, Rose, Tanner, Newell and Sammon would we really want to keep? In my view about a third of them.

You've answered Toxteth's post for me. Spot on.

Gillespie was a clear winner for me. I Don't understand what he did wrong.

Sorry don't agree Yorky. Yes players didn't cover themselves in glory but the game was lost at 2.30. Wrong team wrong tactics wrong substitutions. We seemed totally unprepared for how Livvy were going to play and didn't even have a Plan A.

I believe that its a new system being introduced - maybe for the first time today (scanning of tickets). On checking their website, they uploaded an article on Tuesday saying that we could buy tickets from Fir Park. No mention at all about the game being all ticket or being able to buy them at the Almondvale Suite. Instead of queues at the turnstiles there will be queues in the Almondvale Suite. I doubt if solving the queueing problem formed any part of their thinking. You would have thought that if they planned to introduce such a new system they would have given visiting fans plenty of advance warning. That said there won't be a huge crowd today.

Absolutely. Legal agreements will have been signed and leaving all other issues aside, if the Society/club simply told Messrs Hutchison and Boyle to do one and they'd get no more cash, as Covenanter suggests, then expensive legal suits would inevitably follow and the club could go to the wall as a result. It would also be morally wrong to do so.

Fully agree - do both. 5 shares in the club gives you exactly the same benefits as 500 shares. You will be able to attend the AGM and view the accounts in full. You'll also own a little piece of the club. 5 shares might cost you about £50. As for the Society- join as its a no brainer. Pay a little up front if you wish. What has it done? Well its kept our club alive and has allowed us to put a team on the field every week. If it wasn't for the Society and members' donations, the likes of David Turnbull would be plying his trade elsewhere. As Ropy says though only spend what you can afford.

The recently released set of Club Accounts (year ending 31 May) shows that Les Hutchison was owed £994,00 (£1,469,000 last year) and John Boyle £210,00 (£280,000 last year). Since then we've had Kipre's transfer fee and Les will be writing off more of his debt through his Double Your Money offer. Taking everything into account, I'd guess that we will owe them somewhere in the region of £800k by the end of next month. So, progress is being made.

I notice from the Annual Accounts that les Hutchison wrote off £194,000 in the last year, presumably through his "double your money" offer. As you'll all know he extended this initiative to the end of next month. Could the Society up its efforts in the coming weeks to maximise contributions? I know Christmas is coming up. Maybe a bucket collection? Every bit helps as they say.

+1 I see that entry is now by ticket only (they can be purchased at the ground at the Almondvale Suite (whatever and wherever that is). Impractical for me to order online at this stage. Couldn't Livingston have announced this last week allowing us to buy tickets last Saturday? Its not as if the fixture has been hurriedly arranged. Apologies to LFC if this very late change has been foisted on them by Police Scotland.

Agreed. At the time of the internet banking scam (reported £800k loss), Accies Directors were reported as saying they'd need to dip into their own pockets to pay wages and the club was in dire straits. They tried to calim the cash back but were unsuccessful. Their accounts seem like a black box.

Carson now out for the season. Both McHugh and Hartley are suspended so a place for Maguire, Donnelly or maybe Dunne beckons. SurelyJohnson has earned his right to play if only to start? For Livingston one man wrecking squad Menga is suspended.

I wouldn't have thought that naming rights to their stand would net that much annually nor would annual office rent. Surely transfer income from the lieks of McCarthy & MCarthur would have long gone? They also run an expensive youth set up. All very odd.

Overall, the chart sems logical enough but like you Iain I'm puzzled by our relative position to Accies and St Johnstone. Now average salaries can be misleading as Weeyin has pointed out. From annual accounts it isn't possible to isolate playing from non playing staff. Also you can have a small squad on a relatively higher average wage as opposed to a larger squad on a smaller average wage. How did the authors decide to identify the exact composition of the first team squads? St Johnstone are a wee bit smaller than us as a club but have finished higher than us in the league so will have attracted higher sponsorship monies. Also they have no debt to pay off. Its also likely that players like Scougall and Watt are on relatively high salaries compared to the rest of their squad. Accies I just don't understand. They are a far smaller club, have generally finished below us in the league but don't have any debt. That said they are reported to have lost circa £800k in a banking scam and seemingly went almost bankrupt as a consequence but still their average wage increased? It just doesn't make sense.